Forest for the trees#
One of two initial observations (trees-for-the-forest being the other) of an education system's attempts to improve learning and teaching at scale. Both are side effects of using a standardised, top-down, reductionist approach to a complex problem.
Nascent definition#
Tendency for reductionist approaches loose a sense of the whole (see ateleogical-versus-teleological).
In the following example, a reductionist approach to learning outcomes (trees) tends to encourage a loss of attention to the academic discipline (the forest). The ability to make connections beyond the trees
Know and do tables - goal setting#
Initially arose in observation of the introduction of "Know and do tables" to all teachers in a school. The process suggested was to convert a unit plan and relevant curriculum achievement standards into a table with two columns
- I will know (content)
- I can do (skills)
The idea being that this table would be filled with student friendly checklists of what they will learn in a unit. That students would use this to track their progress, including toward a student-generated goal (or three)
As implemented, this looks like leading the students and the teachers to focusing narrowly on the unit plan curriculum. In mathematics this narrow focus on the specifics of the curriculum contributes to students forming very narrow conceptions of mathematics. Of high school mathematics being focused narrowly.
It encourages students and teachers not to see the forest (mathematics, what it is, what it can mean for a student) for the trees (the specifics of the curriculum).
What's interesting is that delving into the details of the source material (Marzano, 2019) you see suggestions that the author was aware of this limitation. See the following table showing parts of a suggested "student-friendly proficiency scale". "connections" to what wasn't taught is mentioned.
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 4.0 | I know (can do) it well enough to make connections that weren’t taught, and I’m right about those connections |
| 3.5 | I know (can do) it well enough to make connections that weren’t taught, but I’m not always right about those connections |
| 3.0 | I know (can do) everything that was taught (the easy parts and the harder parts) without making mistakes |
| 2.5 | I know (can do) all the easy parts and some (but not all) of the harder parts |
| 2.0 | I know (can do) all the easy parts, but I don’t know (can’t do) the harder parts |
| 1.5 | I know (can do) some of the easier parts, but I make some mistakes |
To take this a step further, this type of reductionist approach has a tendency to encourage the more regimented, explicit approach to teaching mathematics. The opposite of what Boaler (2015) argues
When mathematics is taught as an open and creative subject, all about connections, learning, and growth, and mistakes are encouraged, incredible things happen
References#
Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Marzano, R. J (2019). The handbook for the New art and science of teaching. ASCD, Solution Tree Press.